I just saw this for the first time. I’m asking around because I’m wondering who did it. But I sure like it.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XiyL_h7BbE]Thinking Christian
"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel
"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell
Serving with:
"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel
"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell
Serving with:
Speaking as an atheist and a former Christian, the mistake I feel you and other religious organizations are making is in treating atheism like another religion. People like Dawkins and Silverman don’t necessarily represent my view. I don’t need them to validate my view of life, so attacking them or what they say isn’t going to accomplish anything besides making yourselves feel better about the path you have chosen for your own beliefs.
I attended the rally because it’s human nature to want to hang around people who are a lot like you. There were many things spoken there that I didn’t agree with, including too much bashing of religious beliefs. Whatever. None of it proves God is real. Similarly, I would agree nothing proves God is not real either — nor does anything prove that Star Wars didn’t really happen a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
There are no sacred texts of atheism, no spiritual leaders, deacons, or teachers, no rules beyond the law of the land and our human nature of wanting to do no harm to others. That’s why the rally attracted a lot of different people, from humanists, to agnostics, to atheists, and as in any group, a few extreme mentally unstable folk. It also explains why there were so many differing viewpoints raised and people with signs that I felt were not helpful or productive.
Being an atheist is not easy. For example, my best friend died last year and I could get no comfort in a belief that I would see him again some day. I had to deal with my grief and the reality that he was gone forever.
I honestly would prefer there to be a loving God who is watching over me and has a plan for my life. That would be awesome. But no matter how much any of us wants something to happen or believes that it is true, it doesn’t mean it is true. It’s all almost certainly a delusion and just wishful thinking.
I will check back here later and see if you’d like to have a reasoned discussion on the topic. I have a completely opened mind. I hope that you do as well.
Would you describe yourself as a naturalist?
Armitage,
You could be right, but if God does not exist much of our experiences as humans are probably a delusion.
SteveK, I would not proclaim myself to be anything except me, a sum of my unique experiences from my own life.
Melissa, in similar fashion, what I think I know is based on the inputs I have encountered and how my brain has learned to interpret them.
I am, without a doubt, open to the possibility that no matter how carefully I have tried to learn and grow from my life experiences, I could be mistaken. I am not afraid of being wrong. Are you?
There’s a lot of flexibility in the term “prove”. God standing in front of you would prove he is real – at least it would prove it to you, but it wouldn’t help prove it to your friend in a neighboring city or to the scientific community. Your friend might call you an irrational believer, but you know better than that. To you, God has been proven.
But short of that happening a reasonable inference can be made one way or the other. Notice I used the word reasonable, as in thinking it through. We’re not talking about blind faith that goes against the evidence. We’re talking about faith in the inference, given the evidence.
If PZ converted and gave a long detailed testimony with reasons as to why, would that be worth something to you? It would to me.
Armitage,
Atheism, like theism, only accounts for one aspect of a person’s worldview. Yet, when many atheists talk about “theists,” what they mean are “Christian theists.” When many Christians talk about “atheists,” what they mean are “metaphysical naturalists.” While these usages do not be accurately reflect the denotative meaning of each term, they are used to reflect a connotative meaning which is derived from the context in which the users often find themselves.
I had to look this person up. I’m not some atheist groupie, I’m not real familiar with the “stars.” But to answer your question, yes, it would have more weight in my reasoning process than, for example, a jailhouse salvation. That sounds a bit judgmental like one person is worth more than another, whereas if God is real, He’d be celebrating both salvations the same.
Care to answer my question from my post before this one? Thanks.
Have you thought about the significant issues? If so, what’s your take on them? To name a few…
– Moral grounding
– Origins of reality and life
– The nature (essence) of reality
– The human condition
– Atheism’s problem of evil (and good)
Armitage,
If I’m willfully holding onto a wrong belief that I think is wrong then that is a problem. Otherwise, no, I’m not afraid of being wrong and owning up to that – and correcting it. Ask my wife, I’m wrong several times a week. 🙂
Why is it a problem? When you die and if you are wrong, then you will never know. Well, let me correct that, you will never know if and only if there is nothing after our mortal lives. If some of the other world’s religions turn out to be the truth instead of Christianity, then you might be in for a very uncomfortable afterlife!
My father is a Christian and, believe it or not, an evangelist. I love and respect him much. He’s made a very positive difference in many people’s lives. It would crush him if he knew of my lack of belief, so I keep it to myself out of respect for his work and happiness. I am thankful that when his time comes to die, if all of what he believes is wrong, he will not know it.
As for the “significant issues,” of course I think about them a lot. But for that last point, I hope you are not implying that atheists have a problem with morals. It is possible to be good for goodness sake, as the saying goes. I would hope you are a good person and kind to others because that is who you are, not because you fear divine consequences or are looking for a reward on the other side.
Armitage,
Well I’ve been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again. If I am wrong about God’s existence there is nothing to be afraid of, one imaginary meaning is as good as any other.
Armitage,
No one is suggesting that atheists can’t do good in some sense, all people are God’s image bearers whether they ackowledge it or not. To some extent we all have the good written on our hearts but if atheism is true what does it mean to be good? Do what feels right? What makes you feel good? What satisfies you?
Ah Melissa, but what if Islam is the truth? What if Jesus was just another prophet? You haven’t spent your life honoring the five pillars of Islam and if you’ve ever spoken against Islam, then according to the Quran, even your good deeds won’t matter, you’ll be cast straight into Hell. Pretty dire consequences to getting that one wrong. Over a billion people on this planet are convinced Islam is the true religion. Hence the possibility of being wrong could be quite dire.
p.s., please don’t think I am taking Richard Dawkins advise on mocking religious people. I didn’t like that at all. On the contrary, these are honest questions I have asked myself many times over the years.
Melissa,
Those are pretty primitive emotions. If I was only driven about what feels good, I’d go out and do something that would hurt my wife’s feelings. So my motivation not to is because I love her greatly and want her to be happy and would never dream of hurting her.
Outside of that, I would never harm another human because we are all here for such a short amount of time, experiencing and reacting to what happens around us, some unfortunately experience more pain than happiness. I therefore am happy when those around me are happy and I will do what I can to help propogate that, because goodness is contagious. If I find someone’s iPad in the seat pocket of a plane, I will do what I can to locate that person and return it. That, in turn will make them happy and give them faith in the goodness of others and hopefully they will pay it forward and do the same when they find a lost wallet.
We are all in this together. Be nice to each other and we all benefit in the long run.
How’s that for motivation?! 🙂
When we are children, we behave because we fear the punishment from our parents. But at some point we mature (hopefully) and do good because it’s the right thing to do. I don’t need to substitute God for my parents in order to keep me behaving!
Hello Armitage,
Speaking as an atheist and a former Christian, the mistake I feel you and other religious organizations are making is in treating atheism like another religion. People like Dawkins and Silverman don’t necessarily represent my view. I don’t need them to validate my view of life, so attacking them or what they say isn’t going to accomplish anything besides making yourselves feel better about the path you have chosen for your own beliefs.
I empathize with what you are saying, as many of us would tell you that the views of this preacher or that televangelist don’t necessarily represent my view. But the fact remains is that there is a new movement of atheists – The New Atheist Movement. I, for one, do not “attack” the movement to make myself feel better about the path. I raise legitimate and sound criticisms of the movement that, like any movement, is deserving of scrutiny under the lens of critical thinking.
There are no sacred texts of atheism, no spiritual leaders, deacons, or teachers, no rules beyond the law of the land and our human nature of wanting to do no harm to others.
This may be true of atheism, but it is not true of the New Atheist Movement. They do have their leaders whom they defend with religious zeal. They are united not by a rule, but by an anti-religious socio-political agenda.
I will check back here later and see if you’d like to have a reasoned discussion on the topic. I have a completely opened mind. I hope that you do as well.
Unfortunately, most members of the New Atheist Movement do not want any reasoned discussion. They have made this clear. As an atheist, you might want to have some reasoned discussions with the New Atheists about their tactics (they won’t listen to theists), as they are shaping the public image of atheists in general. ‘Atheist’ will increasingly come to be synonymous with ‘hatred of religion and religious people.’ And fair or unfair, that public image will eventually be applied to you.
Armitage,
Sorry I misunderstood you, if atheism is true then whatever meaning I decide to adopt is imaginary. There are good reasons to trust that Christianity is true and Islam is false.
I don’t think that, your opening statement in distancing yourself from Dawkins was quite clear on that front. It’s a good idea to avoid the prominent new atheists, their arguments are uniformly bad and their disciples tend to be stunted in critical thinking skills and highly competent at employing fallacious reasoning.
Armitage,
You are just skirting the issue and offering up a straw man. While some Christians may be good just to avoid punishment the vast majority of us be good because we want to align ourselves with what is objectively good. ie there is something that is objectively good for us no matter what our opinion is on the matter.
What I am asking is what defines good given your atheism. What is the measure of goodness. What does it mean to be good?
Mike, the motivation or acts of any so-called New Atheist Movement is a non-sequitur. Even if they advocated for the genocide of all Christians, it wouldn’t change the very real possibility that all of what you believe in may not be true.
Melissa, sorry, wasn’t purposely going the straw man route. Didn’t mean to offend. As for what it means to be good, I thought I answered that. What more are you looking for? On the most primitive level, some people behave to avoid going to jail. So as I was wrong to suggest you are only good to avoid punishment from God, please understand that I am good for a lot more reasons than to avoid punishment from society. You can think this is programming from God. I like to think I am more evolved than others who can’t grasp that being good is more than just avoiding societal punishments.
Armitage,
I am not offended, but you still haven’t answered the question. You have talked about what motivates us to be good not what is good or what it means to be good.
Armitage
Because you asked if I’m afraid of being wrong, the implication is that you see it as a problem. In light of that, I’ll let you answer your own question here.
Regarding goodness, Melissa asked the right questions at the end of #17. That’s the atheist’s problem of good that I was referring to.
Armitage,
No where did I claim that an analysis of the New Atheist movement will show that Christianity is true. And I am quite capable of pondering whether my beliefs are true independent of the New Atheism movement.
I responded to how you began it all with a subtle psychological attack, implying that we “attack” the Gnu Movement simply to make ourselves feel good. As if there were no legitimate criticisms and concerns. There are legitimate and serious concerns about this movement and some of us air them. And from where I sit, you seem to want to sweep that under the rug. Maybe I am wrong, but that’s how it comes across to me.
Interestingly enough, you write the “so-called” New Atheist Movement. Are you denying the existence of this movement?
Interesting. So not only have we a grounding problem on atheism, but even our moral impulses are the product of random mutations.
This means, of course, that this view advocates the incarcerating, segregating and punishing of people based upon genetic make-up.
Let’s reroll this entire discussion, if you don’t mind. I don’t want to get into some discussion where I might be trying to convince you God is not real. There’s nothing to gain from that for me. If your belief helps you enjoy life better and be happier, I’m happy for you — and even jealous.
So, what if my posting is an unconscious cry for help? Not too far from the truth. Would it surprise you that I often pray, even though I don’t believe in it anymore? I pray to God to please make Himself real to me, then beat myself up as to why that hasn’t happened. Would you be surprised that I am literally in a church 6 days a week for the past 2.5 years and nothing happens? That I have a close relationship to all of the members of my church and love each and every one of them, even though I am not one of them?
When I was much younger, I believed in God with all my heart, I spoke in tongues, I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Hence I could beat myself up and I could think, wow, why has God forsaken me?
But that’s not logical. The logical explanation is that God doesn’t exist.
So that’s where I am. My mind is open and willing. But as I stated before, it doesn’t matter how bad you want to believe in something, it won’t change reality if it’s not true. 🙁
Speaking of strawman arguments… where did that come from? What are you trying to accomplish? To try to convince me that my morality is ungrounded because of my lack of belief in God and somehow therefore that proves God is real?
As for any atheism movements, again, what does what they do or their motivation have to do with the larger question here? Don’t expect me to respond to any of this stuff because I have nothing to do with any of them, have not read anything they’ve written, and this rally was the first atheist event I’ve ever attended.
Thanks for sharing that, Armitage.
It is terribly sad to me when people have lost their belief in God – especially when they are not happy about it.
I mean no offence here, but given some of your remarks it seems possible to me that there might be a humility issue standing between you and God.
I have one so maybe I am guilty of projection, though.
For me, God graciously held onto me through adolescent doubts and a great deal of (presumed) self-dependence. Now God makes Himself more and more real to me the more I surrender the illusion of my own control.
Dear Father,
Please change Armitage’s heart, reveal Your greatness to him and give him life in Your Son.
Where did it come from? Directly from your claim.
Yes, the grounding problem in regard to objective morality ought to point you toward God.
The fact that we actually perceive the objectivity of morality undercuts atheism.
The fact that we actually do advocate for punishment and correction of malefactors demonstrates that we do not think we are actually talking about one specimen being more highly evolved than the other. We know that there really is right and wrong, and that justice does make real demands of us – it is not merely a matter of perceptions shaped by random mutations.
Armitage,
Okay, I can empathize with what you are saying. I went through a stage like that when I was younger. In fact, throughout the years, I have zoned into the agnostic state a few times. My realizations, for what they are worth, are these:
1. When it comes to this question, the human intellect will never deliver the truth. It will point in one direction or another (and the direction may change back and forth over time) but in the end, there are always and will always be doubts. Doubts about God’s existence. Doubts about God’s non-existence.
2. Since the ability to arrive at certain truth escapes our limited brains, in the final analysis, it is about choice. And for me, that is very satisfying. Why? Because it is our choices that define us. It is our choices that make us who were are. That the very thing that defines us is put on center stage when it comes to this core question speaks volumes to me.
3. If you ponder it deeply, you might reach the conclusion that I have. In our choice to pursue God, a Being who seems less real than our fellow humans because He is not detected by our sensory apparati, we ourselves become deeper people. We become more “real.”
God’s distance may seem unfair and unsatisfying. But I think it is how he “draws us out.” It’s how he “grows us” It’s how he makes us “more real.” This is probably not making much sense, but think of when Jesus felt abandoned by the Father on the cross. If you can appreciate that that moment deepens the meaning of the Christian faith, then you might glimpse what I am trying to say.
The choice to follow self or follow Christ.
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’
— C.S. Lewis
In case I didn’t make much sense, perhaps the The Velveteen Rabbit might help:
“What is REAL?” asked the Rabbit one day, when they were lying side by side near the nursery fender, before Nana came to tidy the room. “Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?”
“Real isn’t how you are made,” said the Skin Horse. “It’s a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real.”
“Does it hurt?” asked the Rabbit.
“Sometimes,” said the Skin Horse, for he was always truthful. “When you are Real you don’t mind being hurt.”
“Does it happen all at once, like being wound up,” he asked, “or bit by bit?”
“It doesn’t happen all at once,” said the Skin Horse. “You become. It takes a long time. That’s why it doesn’t happen often to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept. Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don’t matter at all, because once you are Real you can’t be ugly, except to people who don’t understand.”
Charlie, are you saying that humans are the only animals capable of understanding right from wrong and therefore that must mean that’s a trait God has given to us?
SteveK, ironically when I was young I found it hard to say “Thy will be done” and mean it. Now I say it all the time and honestly mean it, and here I am. Sans God.
Melissa, when you say “There are good reasons to trust that Christianity is true and Islam is false” what do you mean by that? One leading reason for my issue is that I couldn’t resolve the fact that there are loads of different religions in the world, most of whom believe they are right and the rest are wrong. Therefore even if one group is “right” the vast majority of people who are religious in this world are still “wrong.”
Hi Armitage,
I am talking about grounding morality, not discerning it, and not behaving for another’s supposed benefit.
Absolutely right. And that is not evidence whatsoever for the validity of one view or the other.
If atheism is right then all other worldviews are wrong, so this reasoning cuts atheism away as well.
These leaves reasoning through the evidence as opposed to a priori considerations.
Armitage,
I don’t make it a habit of judging a person online after exchanging a few comments, but given your history *maybe* you are a believer, neck deep in sin, in need of a strong dose of humility and assurances rather than a rebellious skeptic full of himself. What do you think?
Armitage,
Thanks for sharing a little of where you’re coming from. When you believed what were your reasons for believing? Maybe your reasons for belief were more experiential rather than rational which is fine but can cause problems if the experience of God’s closeness is felt less. Personally the rational reasons for believing the Christoan faith are what underpins most of my belief added to that is my personal experience of God’s transformation in my own life and the lives of others around me.
The historical case for the resurrection of Christ and the public nature of that event as opposed to the private revelation that is the foundation for Islam. The time between the events and the written record is much greater for Islam as compared to Christianity. Islam was primarily spread by conquest as opposed to Christianity that grew under persecution and continued to spread without necessarily being associated with conquest. That Christianity tells us that we cannot save ourselves which would be self-evident if we would just take an honest look at ourselves.
Armitage,
Maybe you should do some more reading, on this site or on other apologetic sites, learn that there are good reasons why we believe God is a real being, and not just that, but one who holds a deep interest in each of us individually, who cherishes us and loves us. Who we can confidently say made an ultimate sacrifice for us.
Each one of us here holds to this truth, not despite evidence, but with a great amount of it! We don’t fear intellectual hurdles, but rather we confront them head on, because we know that when we confront them, they can be overcome. Ask questions, please, and I’m sure the people who comment on this site, and Tom himself, will attempt to answer to the best of their abilities.
As to your constant crying out for god: I couldn’t understand exactly how you feel, I don’t think. From your point of view, over such a period of time, you must feel forsaken…
But don’t rule out the existence of God just yet. The conclusion that God doesn’t exist is by no means the only logical one. Your situation seems to be one that could easily bring about complacency. Perhaps rather than living your whole life as the shallowest type of ‘Christian’, it could be that he wants you to overcome this trial, and grow as a person, to be stronger, more mature. How sweet would it be, when you finally discovered the greatest truth that anyone could ever know, after having struggled for so long!
Keep hoping for a day like that, and if atheism is true, you will have lost nothing, because in atheism, we lose everything. How much greater it is to gain everything.
Piper’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but here’s a sermon I just heard tonight that your comment dovetails with, asdf.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/the-solid-logic-of-heaven-holds#.T3E-2BIgqwA.facebook
Thanks Charlie, I really appreciated that. He speaks quite powerfully, he’s pretty confrontational, even with such a reaffirming message.
Armitage,
Perhaps we could foucus on one question. The question of good. You said:
“It is possible to be good for goodness sake, as the saying goes. I would hope you are a good person and kind to others because that is who you are.”
That tells me why you are good. What we’re asking is why “you” (anyone) should be good. Lots of people have chosen not to be good. What do you say to them. Can you tell them why they should “be good for goodness sake”? The “we’ll all be better off for it” may be true but why should they care about being better off. That’s just your subjective opinion about the way things should be. They don’t care about that. What can you tell them that will oblige them to be “be good for goodness sake”? That’s the problem we see with atheism. It turns what we all know should be an ought into just your opinion on what should be an ought. That doesn’t cut it.
SteveK,
Well then, if I deny that that is true, and you believe it’s true, then the more I deny it the more you will believe I am hiding it. But I know the truth and the truth is I feel I am a much better person now than I’ve ever been in my life, including my religious period. We should all strive to improve ourselves through life, and I’ve done my best to do that.
Melissa,
My reasons for believing were most likely programming and indoctrination as a child. How could I not? I loved them deeply and my father is a minister so I was surrounded by it daily.
Ah, Pascal’s wager. The problem is, if God does indeed exist, then by definition He could see through that.
Charlie,
The logical fallacy here is assuming each of these possibilities are equally valid whereas atheism is the absence of belief and all of the others involve faith that certain historical events were accurately recorded (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) or that there are explanations for certain experiences of life that are difficult to explain rationally (Eastern Religions)
I find that interesting because I’ve heard arguments that use the opposite of that stance to conclude that evolution or global warming is not proven (that’s an illustration, I don’t want to devolve into those arguments please)
But OK, I’ll bite. What evidence exists that God is real? Isn’t the entire concept of salvation the faith that Jesus died for my sins and rose again and you must just believe that to be true? How can there be evidence that is true?
See, the real problem here that makes me probably “hopeless” is that new believers can make that leap of faith and then believe it is true and experience all the great euphoria that comes along with it, whereas a former believer who lost faith is not going to be so easy to convert back. This happened not through sin, but by asking a simple dangerous question of myself, “What if this is not true?”
It’s not like I hate religion or those who believe in God or feel wronged by any person of Faith. It’s not that I’ve closed my mind. My problem is that I opened my mind. Perhaps that is the “sin” that I am “neck deep” in.
BillT, excellent question. Unfortunately work calls. I’ll reply tonight. In the meantime, thanks to everyone for your kind responses — well except for the one who said my life must be full of sin, but I’ll forgive you for that assumption because I know that it wasn’t meant the way it sounded. 🙂
@Armitage:
Allow me to butt in the discussion, and reinforce one point, forcefully made by BillT, and add a couple more.
The morality problem for atheism is not a problem of motivation but one of *rational justification*.
Let us take a simple example: you have a psycopath in front of you; this psychopath is special though, he is a completely rational man. Can you convince him that what he is about to do — torture and sodomize you — is morally wrong in any *objective* sense, that is, independent of personal feelings, social mores or biological vagaries? What Melissa is saying is that you cannot.
True, it does not. But if He does exist, it does not change reality chanting aloud to yourself how all belief in Him is deluded, how it is engaging in wishful thinking, longing for the lost Father (Freud), etc. Replacing hope by what looks like realistic expectations *is* also a psychological defense mechanism and just as delusional as wishful thinking. I do not know why, but this is a fallacy commonly made by atheists and agnostics, who like to view themselves as stauch stoics who realistically look despair and nihilism right in the face and take up arms against it in whatever miserable way they can. Bollocks.
You seem to be saying that negative statements do not have a burden proof as do positive ones. This is demonstrably false, because every positive statement P is also a negative one; just pass to the double negative, that is, P is logically equivalent to not-Q with Q equal to not-P.
A rough outline goes like this:
1. Reason can establish the existence of God, a natural moral law, etc.
2. Jesus Christ was an historical, existing person.
3. The resurrection of Jesus Christ was a real, historical event.
A note at this point. Virtually no historian doubts 2 and a very good case can be made for 3, that is, a *rational*, compelling argument can be made for the truth of 3. References provided if you want.
4. Since the resurrection of the dead is a miracle, we have the missing link we need, for miracles can only be explained by a direct intervention of God, which we already established as existing in 1.
5. If Christ indeed rose from the dead, then his claims are true and we have *rational* grounds to accept them as such.
6. In particular, Christ’s authority is the authority of God for he said that he was the Son of God and that the truth of this would be confirmed by his resurrection.
7. If Jesus Christ has divine authority and his claims are true, then the points in your list follow. Or to put it in another way, the points in your list are indeed accepted on authority but we have *rational* grounds to accept the authority as trustworthy.
Charlie, #23
Do you think the punishment of wrongdoers is a good, in its own right, and that irrespective of anything else, the suffering of a wrongdoer is a per se good?
Hi d,
Yes, absolutely.
This is what justice, fairness, intrinsic value, responsibility, etc., would demand. This is what allows us to treat the wrongdoer with the dignity of a moral agent. It is the view that treats transgression as a true guilt and results in a moral debt.
The benefits of correction, deterrence, and protection of society through the removal of a malignance are all attractive and valuable, but each becomes an act of cruelty if punishment for punishment’s sake is not also a good. If it is not then the malefactor’s moral guilt is denied. And there is nothing more cruel than, and it would be evil, capturing an innocent person and incarcerating him, or forcing him to undergo coercive correction, as a means to better society at his expense.
Charlie, #33
Not necessarily true. If God values truth, then its a reasonable expectation that false religions wouldn’t exist, or at the very least, be far fewer in number or that far fewer people would believe them.
On atheism, you really would have no expectation that false beliefs, like the various theism, would be uncommon.
Charlie, #44
So then even if correction, deterrence and protection (and rehabilitation) were possible after a crime was committed, but entailed no suffering of the wrongdoer, would you still prefer that the wrongdoer be made to suffer?
On the flipside, if the suffering of the criminal only hardened him (and others in society) and made him less likely to be rehabilitated, crime less likely to be deterred, etc, would you still say his suffering is good?
Hi, Armitage. This seems like an interesting discussion, so I hope you all don’t mind if I jump in. We all ask the same questions: Who am I (How did life come into existence?) Why am I here (Do I have a purpose?) Where am I going (Is there an afterlife or is this life the only one there is?) What is true? You know the Christian response has to do with God, but you say, “But that’s not logical. The logical explanation is that God doesn’t exist”.
Then what is the logical explanation? The only other answer is materialism/naturalism otherwise you would have to claim agnosticism. Since you did not answer SteveK’s question asking if you are a naturalist, I would have to assume that you are agnostic about all those issues. I hope you don’t think I’m setting up a strawman argument, but I did want to point out the flaws in materialism/naturalism since you said you are open-minded (which I take to mean open-minded to both views).
The materialist/naturalist’ explanation of how life came into existence, purpose in life, and what is true is not logical. Richard Dawkins tries to offer the natural explanation to the origin of life-abiogenesis or panspermia-both which have absolutely no evidence as having occurred, so it is not a good, logical explanation. On naturalism/materialism, there is no transcendent purpose in life. To create purpose for oneself would only be a result of wishful thinking, which is delusional. Since on naturalism/materialism, everything is the product of random accidents, how can we trust to know what is true? We can’t on naturalism, which is why instrumental value is their best answer. Instrumental value, though, does not worry itself about truth. Believing in comforting lies can be instrumental to a person, but as you can see, truth is no longer inherently good. On naturalism, truth is only good if it is of instrumental value to the person. Of course, one could claim that goodness and truth are intrinsic if one posits a real existence of a realm of abstract, but that would be a denial of naturalism.
Another issue brought up by SteveK is moral grounding. No one is questioning if atheists can live moral lives. The question is: Can naturalism ground objective good and evil? If everything in this universe is a result of mindless natural processes that occurred accidentally, how can moral values result from mindless natural processes? Is there a “good” particle? Naturalists try to say good and evil came about because of a need, which would be instrumental to them. However, instrumental value would get objective good and evil mixed up. If things are only of instrumental value, to lie, cheat, and steal, could be considered “good” things.
The reality of naturalism/materialism does not match up to what the naturalist/materialist wish to believe about the world, and so the natural, material explanation is not logical.
“If God values truth, then its a reasonable expectation that false religions wouldn’t exist, or at the very least, be far fewer in number or that far fewer people would believe them.”
Sez who?
This is certainly not a “reasonable expectation” in any sense. It’s a completely arbitrary conclusion arrived at to bolster it’s own supposed truth. The presence or absense or other faiths has nothing whatsovever to do with whether God values truth. It’s a complete non sequitor.
What makes this expectation unreasonable, d, is its unidimensionality. God values truth, of course. He also values free will, relationship, human interaction, human growth and discovery, trust, justice, and more besides.
I hope you stick with us on this. Far too often among atheists, skeptics, etc. there is the sense that they have Christianity all figured out on the basis of just one or two dimensions of awareness. It’s much more rich, more fully-rounded, more thoughtful than that. If you think that a simple, “If God x, then God y” will suffice for anything, then you’re not thinking about the robust and strong intellectual and faith tradition that has stood up to rational challenges for centuries on end. You’re thinking about some small invention of your own instead. Think bigger! Think more in line with reality!
d,
Your “false religion” comment generally falls into the entire “hiddeness” catagory of arguments I’ve seen put forth. They just make no sense. They allow the person offering them to come up with their own standard upon which to judge God. Then that same person appoints themselves to the role of final arbitor of God’s adherence to those standards. Viola! Guilty! That simply isn’t serious argumentation. In fact, it’s quite silly. You’ve maintained higher standards here than that.
If you want a serious question why not tackle my #39 toArmitage. I know it’s not your quote but I’m sure you get the gist of it.
Grace, if I may answer some of your points here…
Um, well, there’s more people than Richard Dawkins in the field of evolutionary biology, some of them are even religious (and Christian, like Kenneth Miller). The way you word it makes it sound like he is a lone crank, perpetuating strange ideas that go against the grain of his field, or that no religious persons could possibly endorse.
Second, things continue to chug along in the field of abiogenesis research making your poopoo-ing a little strange. Many organics necessary for life have been formed in experiments that attempt to simulate possible natural conditions of the early earth, etc. Things didn’t stop with Miller-Urey. We’re finding evidence of organic compounds elsewhere in the universe, on comets, giving some credence to some variations of panspermia.
There’s little doubt that life can be assembled from non-living matter, so its really just a matter of finding out under what conditions this is possible, and if those conditions could have naturally existed on early earth. Hard to do, yes… but research is moving along, and not at all at any impasse or stopping point, making your claims about the logical quality of abiogenesis premature at best, and outright false at worst.
And finally, like evolution, abiogenesis isn’t necessarily evidence against theism. So I’m not sure why you care so much about it.
This is a non-sequitor. Just because there would be no transcendent purpose or meaning, does not entail the non-existence of all purpose or meaning, or that creating purpose for oneself makes one delusional.
Furthermore, there are good arguments that suggest ultimate purpose is incoherent, even on theism. Steve Maitzen writes:
On naturalism, the universe is came about by non-mental processes, but that does not entail that everything is a random accident.
Serious questions about epistemology remain on naturalism (and theism), and are among the most challenging in the philosophical world – but naturalism and evolution actually explains our cognitive biases, the types of false beliefs we tend to have, and the types of true beliefs we tend to have (as far as we can determine) much better than theism (ie, sin did it).
There are many non-theist moral realisms: contractarianism, various stripes of utilitarianism, etc. Theists have to disprove all of them conclusively to claim no moral realism can exist given naturalism (and no one has even gotten close).
The question, “If everything in this universe is a result of mindless natural processes that occurred accidentally, how can moral values result from mindless natural processes?” is misconceived.
For NO moral theory can have, as its reason for existence, a reason that is moral. So even if you ground objective morality in some transcendent, fundamental (or even mental) thing, it has no moral reason for its existence. Any conceivable morality, exists for amoral reasons, or no reason at all.
And if that’s the case, you can see that everybody – theist and naturalist alike – are in the exact same predicament. Fundamental spiritual stuff faces the exact same problem a “moral particle” faces… there can be no moral reason for it’s existence. And if that fact undermines the “moral particle”, it also undermines the other.
BillT:
In so thinking through the logical and probable implications of the
divine attributes, I do nothing more egregious than the theologian
does a thousand times in a day.
If we just can’t do that, theology is dead. Its just special pleading
to disallow conclusions that you don’t prefer.
@d,
Let me get this straight. Because you have already concluded that theologians are “simply making things up”, you feel justified in “simply making things up”? And then you come to conclusions (like, for example, “theologians are simply making things up”) on the basis of the stuff that you’ve “simply made up”? What have I missed?
Tom writes:
Then we have to ask, is it possible and plausible that say, perfect knowledge of the reality of God or the “true religion” is incompatible with things like free will, relationship, human interaction, human growth, discovery, truth, justice, etc?
I’d have to answer no. For example, robust knowledge about relevant facts is generally considered a requirement for a decision to be free. Ignorance is an impediment to genuine freedom. So on the contrary, being fully informed about facts about God is actually necessary for our choice to choose him or reject him to be truly free.
Furthermore, if any of the non-Christians in the world chose their religions based on ignorance, God isnt actually allowing them to exercise their free will, so it rings hollow to say he values it so much.
Correct, but wildly misleading. It will take a prodigious amount of intelligence, engineering, scientific advance and superior technology to “assemble life from non-living matter”. But to suppose that the (eventual?) success of this enterprise is evidence in favor of abiogenesis is a remarkable leap of faith.
How is that possible… when they leave our cognition unexplained?
Doug,
Not really… for one, there’s been lots of encouraging progress in the field, even though we still have miles and miles to go. Its reasonable to expect this will continue.
Second, to suppose the evidence of this enterprise will fall down on the side of supernaturalism is quite frankly, the real leap of faith here – the problem is hard, but there’s little good reason to assume it intractible for naturalism.
Even when placing the arguments of intelligent design “science” in the best light, there simply is no solid ground to decisvely rule out the plausibility of unguided abiogenesis, especially given the difficulty of the problem, that so little is known, and that the research is so young (both ID and abiogenesis).
@d,
Your faith in science is (no doubt) to be commended, but the evidence is really, really weak for your conclusions. Surely you appreciate the absurdity of claiming “there was no intelligence involved” in a process that requires billions of dollars and thousands of research-years to re-engineer?
But even if science was able to progress to the point of constructing life from non-life (thinking God’s thoughts after Him)… how does science account for the fact that the physical properties of matter permit life in the first place?
d,
So what you’re doing there is the same as what theologians do. You’re thinking through “the logical and probable implications of the divine attributes”. Thinking through the implications of the divine attributes and creating standards for God to meet that you judge him to be a failure at are about as far apart as night and day. I hope you’re just exercising your sophistry and not taking that explanation seriously.
d,
You think random events can produce non-random realities – that events without any purpose can produce a reality with purpose? That appears to be poor reasoning. I won’t ask for evidence of your claim. I’ll settle for an explanation of your logic.
“and that the research is so young (both ID and abiogenesis”).
Research in abiogenisis began in 1952, 60 years ago with the Miller/Urey experiments. Its hardly progressed at all since then. Given how much science has progressed in the last 60 years in every field of scientific endevor (execpt abiogenisis) you calling it “so young” is creative if nothing else.
Thanks, all for saving me some work.
Bill T, to Armitage/d;
Exactly. In fact, if Christianity or Judaism or Islam is true, then we would expect thee false religions because that is what God tells us will occur; there will always be false prophets.
Regarding progress in abiogenesis, I would say there has been some. It seems all to be of the nature of figuring out ways it couldn’t work naturally. Seems also that the excitement of its prospect have died out and funding is drying up as there look like nothing but dead-ends. That’s Michael Denton’s take on the situation, at least.
BillT:
Are you really acquainted enough with the work going on in the fields related to abiogenesis, to say there is “no progress”? I suspect not.
Doug:
Please review the relevant posts, and what I was responding too, which was the claim that abiogenesis is illogical.
My reply was no stronger than the claim that we have no reasonable grounds to rule it out, or to strongly prefer supernaturalism.
d,
No, d, that is not the case. The theist starts with morality as a necessary fact of reality, grounded in the very being of God. That necessary fact explains why you and I can perceive morality.
Naturalism starts with amoral matter and energy and tries to get morality from that. Logically, it can’t do that any more than you can get energy from a complete absence of energy.
If you think it’s possible please explain the logic rather than make the claim. Right now, you are like a guy trying to sell me a perpetual motion machine. I’m not buying your sales pitch until you can explain the logic of how it works.
SteveK:
That’s exactly the same as saying morality exists, for no moral reason. And really.. how could there be?
Hi d,
I don’t think there is much value in following an unending list of ethical dilemmas or hypothetical situations, but I will quickly answer your points.
Notice, that they have nothing to do with my rebuttal to Armitage, who claimed that higher morals among different human beings was a matter of evolution.
If he were right, then people are not better or worse, and actions are not bad or good, but rather, we just have different alleles. Punishing them, then, would be as ridiculous as punishing people for being freckled.
I’m not going to spend the next several days chasing around whether or not we ought to punish, or deter, or anything else, because none of that is relevant to that point.
Anyway ….
Yes, that’s what I said. He needs to be treated as an accountable moral agent with the appropriate dignity – he is not merely an animal to be trained or a defective to be repaired.
Yes, his being punished and made accountable for the offense committed as a moral agent is still, in and of itself (as you asked) a good – just like telling the truth is good.
But oh, now we have a hypothetical in which doing that thing which is intrinsically good is manipulated into having only and foreseeably bad consequences.
So, as a whole, in this hypothetical, I would say you do not do that thing which would be, on its own, good, because in this utilitarian scenario the bad would outweigh the good. In the same way, you do not do the good thing, telling the truth, if it means that more bad things (the Nazis kill the Jews hiding in your attic) will occur as a consequence.
This does not mean telling the truth is not good, and it does not mean that punishment of wrong doing is not good.
Back on point, though, if we are only acting out our individual levels of evolution then our actions are neither good not bad, so punishment, correction, rehabilitation, incarceration, etc., are all cruel.
d,
Watson and Crick discovered DNA a year after Miller/Urey. Would you like to compare the two fields? And Charlie’s post fills in the rest unless you would like to regale us with some of the new exciting discoveries in the facinating field of abiogenesis.
BillT:
Well, there in lies one obvious issue right?
Robust knowledge of DNA is required before one really knows how self-replicating DNA and RNA comes to exist.
Changing the subjet is an excellent tactic at this point. Well done.
Charlie,
Then another question arises necessarily Charlie… if the best inference to be made from the divine properties is that false religions will have little or no success, and yet Christianity expects false religions, then we have to ask if Christianity, as we know it, is what one should expect, given theism? And I’d have to answer that with a big no.
If God existed, Christianity, as we know it, surely wouldnt.
Not sure what this is suppose to prove one way or the other. If I accept this as true, you still cannot logically explain the existence of morality under naturalism. All you do is say naturalism can explain it but the logic isn’t there to support your claim.
I’m not asking you to show me how it can, or explain the step-by-step process. I’m only asking you to cobble together a logical argument. Can you do that?
If I made the claim that I intentionally picked heads as the outcome through the process of me tossing a coin in the air at random, would you question my ability to think rationally?
Hi d,
Why would you say this is the best inference? Who says they would have little or no success? The Jewish Bible, centuries before Christianity, reports that they had great success.
A big ‘no’ from d. Well, the matter is clearly settled, then.
And, D, you haven’t even addressed the Judaeo-Christian explanations for why there are false religions.
I know how much you love it when I refer to Biblical texts, so here you go 🙂 Romans 1:18-3:1 (among others) describes the root cause. 2 Corinthians 4:1-6 , Ephesians 2:1-3, Ephesians 6:10-12 allude to what is really going on behind the scenes.
What caused mankind to turn away from God in the first place? Well, Genesis 3:1-16 answers that question – we have an enemy, a created supernatural being who rebelled against God, who wants to draw us into his rebellion.
SteveK,
It shows that Grace’s particular objection either poses a problem for every moral theory, or no moral theory.
And I think I’ll take a break from explaining naturalist moral theories for a while, after just finishing with that recent thread, which went on for ages on the topic.
If you want some quick material to digest, spend some time reading morality articles on infidels.org… there’s plenty of stuff there from some reputable guys, like Michael Martin.
Victoria,
I’ll repeat – what those passages show, if my inference is reasonable, is that the Bible is inconsistent with theism.
@d your inference is not reasonable, but
prove to us that those Biblical passages demonstrate your inference, please.
It may not be consistent with your idea of what theism is, but from what I have observed, you don’t have a clue as to what Christian theism actually is.
d,
But I explained why this is not the case because the theistic moral theory avoids the problem altogether by grounding morality in morality itself. You are imposing a problem where none exists.
The problem I posed for your side is a logical problem based on the nature of morality – which is a prescriptive nature. Yours is not a problem of imagination, it’s a problem of logic. I too can imagine how morality came from amorality. I too can imagine how an odd number results from the sum of even numbers. What I cannot do is logically explain how an odd number results from this sum. Can you logically explain how morality comes from amorality?
@d (#51):
The Beatific Vision is not the ultimate purpose but the highest good, or summum bonum. How is this supposed to be an argument? Let us run through it: the Beatific Vision is our summum bonum as a matter of objective fact, given that human nature is what it is. Steve Maizen then tries to imagine someone having that experience, stepping back and asking “is this all there is?” Please d, tell us, how is questioning whether the Beatific Vision is the summum bonum somehow denies it being the summum bonum, when the Beatific Vision is, I repeat, the summum bonum as an objective matter of fact? This is suppose to refute what? As far as the last question, Steve Maizen is hardly original, Dostoevsky having made that same question in much more assertive terms and with considerably more genius more than a hundred years ago.
So, this means that Steve Maizen himself not only admits that truth is impossible under naturalism — thereby undermining *all* his own arguments — but he even says that truth is a purely instrumental value; in other words, I have no reason to believe that he is other than a damned liar bent on advancing his particular agenda.
Once again d, you resort to the rank, basest skepticism, without being even aware of the consequences.
False: “how can we trust to know what is true? We can’t on naturalism”. You cannot explain anything at all, you cannot even ground your trust in reason and for all I know, and since you quote Steve Maizen and do not distance yourself from him, you also see truth as purely instrumental so why should I trust anything you say?
*Objective* moral theories are either true or false, in the measure that they say of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. Saying that they have “reasons for existence” makes no sense at all and for the life of me, I cannot even fathom what you are trying to say with this patent absurdity.
G. Rodrigues,
Quickly, the consecutive sections of blockquotes made things unclear, I guess, but that section on instrumental value was quoting Grace, not a quote of Steve Maitzen. The previous section on ultimate purpose was Maitzen.
@d:
Oh my bad then; apologies. The start and finish comments remain though.
Armitage,
If you are still around. I’d like to continue our conversation.
So what you are saying here is that you never got to the point where you made your parents faith your own, your belief was always based on your trust in your parents rather than anything else. I have a question for you though, indoctrination and programming are emotionally loaded terms. All kids are brought up in a particular worldview with it’s associated explanations, definitions of right and wrong that they generally accept because they trust their parents (at least until they get to the stage of rebellion) what makes your situation so different that you need to refer to this quite natural state as indoctrination and programming?
Atheism is not just a lack of belief in God because if there is no God that has implications for the type of world we live in. God is not just one being among many such that if you remove God from the Christian worldview everything else remains the same. Most atheists give it a good shot though and for the most part ignore the incoherency.
Firstly it is quite obvious from what you have written here that your Christian beliefs lacked a lot of the content of rational, historical Christian belief. You have a strange definition of faith. Faith is not believing what you have no evidence for but trusting from what you do know that God is faithful and he will do as he has promised. The Israelites in the desert knew God existed, they had experienced his reality but they still didn’t trust Him, they had no faith. There is plenty of evidence for the God of classical theism in the form of philosophical arguments. Once the necessity of God is established for making any sense of our experiences then we can see that God as described in the bible is completely constant with the God of the philosophers and given that the probability that Jesus really did rise from the dead is high. G. Rodrigues outlined above, more clearly this line of thought.
/meekly walks back into a room full of mental giants….
Well, this is going to be tough to catch up on, but I’ll try.
A lot was discussed about morality but it sounds like it all boils down to “you can’t explain it, therefore it must be God.” I have a problem with that logic because humans have grown tremendously in knowledge over history and bit by bit previously unexplainable things about the world we live in have been explained scientifically. In the past those things that couldn’t be explained were attributed to supernatural explanations.
Also regarding morality, there were questions about what would motivate people to be good in a world without religious influence. I’m going to have to agree with that being a problem with atheism. Religion has always been a good way to bring about self-control of the masses. Absent that, we probably would have problems with many people who can’t grasp the concept of the greater good when determining whether to move forward on selfish decisions. But that doesn’t indicate any truth about supernatural issues.
As for proof of God centering around the claim “The resurrection of Jesus Christ was a real, historical event.” Evidence? The Bible that was written around 50 years after the crucifixion, by man, based on the stories of man, passed down from person to person over decades?
Most churches have a statement of faith that includes the belief that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and then quote Biblical versus to back that up. So it’s circular logic at best.
Then there’s the subject of true vs false religions. Again, Christianity is the true religion because the Bible says so, is the claim. Conveniently, the Quran says something similar. “the disbelievers are in despair concerning your religion, so do not fear them and fear Me; this day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you, and have chosen Islam as your religion”
So that’s where I am these days.
Melissa,
Children tend to almost always adopt the same faith as their parents, with few exceptions. That’s a pretty easily observed situation.
My wife’s family, however, is different, but only due to their upbringing. Their parents took them to a Unitarian church as they were growing up and when they became older they apparently arrange the children in the church to attend religious ceremonies in mosques, churches, Buddhist temples, etc. As a result among her siblings they ended up as one being Christian, one a converted Orthodox Jew (and even moved to Brooklyn), and the other two Buddhists (and one of them moved to Japan).
But they are an exception because they were exposed to multiple beliefs and allowed free choice and not just limited to a single religious belief.
A bit off-topic but I always admired her parents for providing that opportunity to their children.
“A lot was discussed about morality but it sounds like it all boils down to “you can’t explain it, therefore it must be God.”
My question to you regarding morality (#39) is nothing like you describe above. Of course, you can just ignore that or use the above to avoid answering it. That’s certainly up to you.
Hi Armitage,
Thanks for your continued participation.
Unfortunately, you are not quite on the mark with any of your statements, though.
Morality does not point to God because of our ignorance of its explanation. There is no more scientific evidence to be gained about how something can be right or wrong. These are not even in the same categories.
It is not an evidential case but a logical one. If we are right, and objective morality exists, then our duty has to come from some place other than our feelings, our institutions and our genes. God gives us a sufficient and possibly necessary explanation for this morality.
We’ve have posters on this board then claim over and over again that God is an invention to ground what we subjectively desire – objectively morality.
That is, when he wasn’t saying God is an invention to alleviate our fear of death. And God is an invention to explain lightning … etc., etc.
To Him, God was an invention to explain just about everything. Pretty comprehensive brain, that of man, to come up with one cohesive invention to cover so much.
Regarding the New Testament, this misconception is natural but a little vexing. When people claim it was written (down) far after the events they have now been squeezed down to a few decades as opposed to the hundreds of years they used to claim (and which would, minimally, be necessary to account for the legend hypothesis). And they presume that it was verbally passed to one guy, who passed it to another, who passed it to another, before someone finally found some parchment and scribbled what he had heard.
This is not how it worked.
First, Jesus’ had literate scribes, including the tax collector, Matthew Levi, among His Disciples. There is no reason that they were not writing from the beginning His words and deeds, which then were later collated into the Gospels as we know them.
Second, there was not a single witness who went about telling one guy at a time what he recalled.
Christianity exploded first in Jerusalem itself, right where the events took place. It is a matter of historical fact that there was a large following of Christians in Jerusalem within decades of His death (weeks, really, going by the Bible as the source) and that Jesus’ own brother, the leader of that church, was killed by Jerusalem’s officials.
Second, such creeds as the one in first Corinthians would have to go back to within years, if not months, of the Crucifixion. And it states, in memorized or even written form, that Jesus was Resurrected and seen by His disciples.
Third, by nearly half the time you are saying that it took to even write the Gospels, as though they came out of a vacuum, Nero was crucifying, burning alive, and throwing Christians to lions as far away as Rome. The churches had spread all over the land and had become such a force in Rome that it was necessary to persecute them and scapegoat them.
Fourth, with the church spreading, and worshiping Christ as the risen Son of God, right there in Jerusalem there would have been witnesses to put it down. Where were they? Atheists complain about external sources, but where are the writers who scoff “Jesus? There wasn’t even a Jesus” from the First Century? Why didn’t someone say “There never was such a guy” (as though that would be necessary ) or “He never was Crucified” or “You idiots, here’s His body”?
The reason is is that none of this was true. The Jewish Talmud admits to His existence, His miracle-ministry, His following, and His death.
The people in the Bible really existed, we have their ossuaries, we have written accounts in external sources, we have historical consensus on many of them. They were there to say the events never occurred, but they never did. Neither did the Disciples, named and known, most of whom were persecuted and martyred for their declaring what would be a known lie and an absurdity if Jesus never raised from the dead. All it would have taken was for one of them to be questioned about his role in the story and for him to deny it for the movement to have ended.
The internal and external evidence shows that the accounts (not necessary the compilations which are today’s Gospels) date to the time of His life and death. The names are right, the places are right, even the botany is right.
Even Jewish historian Lapide, not a Christian, agreed upon the basis of the historical evidence with the majority of scholars that Jesus really did live, was Crucified under Pontius Pilate, was buried and was then thought to have appeared to the Disciples. He went one step further, though; he said the best explanation is that God raised Him from the dead. To Lapide this did not make Him Messiah, but he felt that was what the historical evidence showed to be the case.
BillT, Ah, no, I answered your question in the paragraph after that one. The one you quoted was in reference to the issue someone else brought up concerning my statement about higher morality being the result of evolution.
No, you didn’t. In your reply #41 you said
“41.BillT, excellent question. Unfortunately work calls. I’ll reply tonight.”
Regarding comment #84, Melissa asked not why you adopted your parents’ beliefs, but why you call this process indoctrination and programming.
You go on to say that it is natural for children to share their parents’ faith but this is exactly what Melissa referred to. You both call it quite normal.
She’s wondering why you’ve attached pejorative labels to this normal state in your own case.
BillT, I answered it in #83
Charlie, it’s programming if a child is only exposed to one viewpoint. It’s just my opinion, not worth wasting time on.
Armitage
Where in the world did you get this from? Seriously, cite someone on this blog that said anything close to that.
Armitage,
You have not answered the questions about morality. All you have talked about is our motivations for doing good. If atheism is true what does it mean to do good? If there is no value in the world except what humans assign how do you conclude that something is objectively good or bad.
SteveK, pretty much most of the comments from #47 through #79
Not sure what you are looking for, but on the simple level, don’t do harm to others.
Armitage,
Given atheism how is that not personal subjective opinion? Given atheism there is no objective definition of harm.
Armitage,
I read all those comments and nowhere did I find anyone saying anything close to “you can’t explain morality, therefore it must be God”.
I only see comments like “this type of reality logically explains morality, therefore it cannot be naturalistic reality.”
Want to try again?
@Armitage
If this is what you think, then you have been listening to a very biased, skeptical viewpoint – you should be aware that there is an abundance of work, every bit as scholarly, that upholds the traditional Biblical viewpoint.
I’ll just provide you with a bibliography and you can go from there 🙂
1. Craig Blomberg The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
2. Richard Bauckham Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
3. Mark D. Roberts Can We Trust the Gospels?
4. Darrell Bock Studying the Historical Jesus
5. Craig S. Keener Miracles
6. N. T. Wright 3 Volume Set: The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God, The Resurrection of the Son of God
7. Mike Licona The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach
8. Craig A. Evans Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels
9. James H. Charlesworth The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide
10. F. F. Bruce The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
For the relationship between modern science and Christianity, I’d also recommend (to start, at least)
11. Edgar Andrews Who Made God?
12. John Lennox God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
#3, 4, and 8 are easier reads than the others. #9 was recommended by the Biblical Archaeology Society – it presents a strictly historical viewpoint without suggesting any particular theological interpretation, although I’d say it is somewhat less conservative than the others.
All are available from Amazon (get the Kindle versions, much less expensive).
I’d also suggest going over to http://www.apologetics315.com and browsing through their bibliographical and authors links as well. Happy Reading 🙂
Atheism is not a religion. There’s no definition of what is right or wrong because it’s an absence of a belief. That’s what the laws of the land are for. I’ve already stipulated that this is a something most religions are helpful with.
SteveK,
It is just what I took away from reading about 30 posts quickly. So if you feel I misinterpreted it and I did misinterpret it, then it means that either the authors of said posts failed to communicate said points they were trying to make clearly, or I’m an idiot with bad reading comprehension.
Take your pick, but please keep it to yourself and I’ll just pretend you think I’m brilliant. Thanks! 🙂
Armitage,
This is the issue that really turned my walk around.
I always used to say that I knew there was a God. Unlike those in Romans who are without excuse, I cannot but see God all day in His creation.
But I used to say, contrary to this, that I believed in Jesus and His story.
I thought of it as something passed down, that I was to take on faith, and that may or not be true. I was taking it as true, in a tentative and half-hearted fashion.
But when I stumbled across the apologetics on this issue God used it to open my eyes. If you can possibly situate yourself in the time and setting of the Apostle’s it becomes much harder to accept the skeptical claims. I think it was easy in the 18th and 19th centuries to look back over the millennia and say thing like “maybe He didn’t even live”, “they were written late, were fabrications, were legendary …” etc.
But when you get your mind into the milieu this position seems preposterous.
Who were they worshiping, if not the real Jesus?
Why were they worshiping Him if they did not think He was the Son of God?
Why do you worship a failed Messiah, if that is what He was?
Why would you invent tales about Him if all He did was fail as a Messiah?
If you were inventing tales why wouldn’t you invent better ones? Why wouldn’t you include the theological points in your stories if they were written for that purpose?
As I asked one interlocutor here, if they were written so far after the fact why didn’t they say something spectacular, like Jesus came down off the Cross and smote His adversaries? This would be a better story, would it not, written from a human perspective (it would lack all the depth and import that we are still discovering in the real Story, but we don’t expect humans to be able to weave that kind of depth into their tales)? The answer to that question was “they wouldn’t get away with it – people would contradict them”. ! Of course they would contradict them. This answer argues for the early writing and the non-human origin. The fact that we don’t have such tales in the Gospels is because the Gospels contain the true stories, and there were people around to confirm or contradict the stories.
What changed the Disciples’ minds if they had loved Jesus and thought Him a military ruler? When He failed and died why would they make up a Resurrection and go about creating disciples in His name? Only because He resurrected and told them to do this.
They didn’t go out and say He had come back to life so let’s raise an army in His name. They said repent, be baptized, feed the poor, love one another.
And then they were persecuted and killed for their claim.
Why didn’t the lie die then? Why did Christians flee their homes instead of recant the lie they had invented? Why didn’t one of them say “this is all bogus, don’t believe it”?
These are the kinds of things that struck me that afternoon and when the light went on … “this isn’t belief, this is knowledge! This really happened, only the orthodox explanation fits all the data and makes sense of what happened.”
My belief in inerrancy followed slowly after this – it did not precede it. I soon realized that if this was factual, if Jesus was exactly who He said He was, then the Bible was truer than I had believed before. As i read and reread and reread the Bible after that I could see God’s fingerprints all over it. What’s more, I realized that Jesus was actually the Divine Son of God, and He endorsed the Bible. He studied it, quoted it and taught it. He would not be Who He is if He was doing so and it was false.
Since then my life has changed and my confidence in God has grown immeasurably. He answers prayers in magnificent ways and touches my heart in ways I had never known before. I am in the midst of watching God work a miracle as we speak in a matter over which I had shed many tears. While I was doing so He made the Cross clear to me. “This,” I saw, “is what the Cross is about. This very thing is what it was for. These sins, this awful situation, this is what Jesus died for, was nailed to the tree for. This sin, and the countless, horrible, unpardonable sins to follow, and the ones that caused it, are forgiven. This is the very reason for the whole Story.”
Amazing Grace.
So that’s pretty much where I’m at.
So that’s pretty much where I am.
Hi Armitage,
Here’s something more to chew on:
Then there’s the subject of true vs false religions. Again, Christianity is the true religion because the Bible says so, is the claim. Conveniently, the Quran says something similar. “the disbelievers are in despair concerning your religion, so do not fear them and fear Me; this day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you, and have chosen Islam as your religion”
I find Christianity, rather than Islam, to be true not because of the Bible claiming its truth, but because the message more deeply resonates. Consider two things.
Christianity is centered around the Incarnation. Thus, according to Christianity, God knows what it is like to be one of us. He knows what it is to feel loss. To feel abandoned. To feel betrayed. To feel pain. The God of Islam knows none of this. He is aloof. He is alien.
Secondly, Christianity is centered around the Crucifixion. Thus, salvation comes through grace, through something God himself has done. Out of love for us. In Islam, salvation comes through works. It is something that is earned, and thus appeals to our arrogance.
If I was born a Muslim, yet came to these realizations, I have complete confidence that I would become a Christian.
Hello Armitage,
When you say:
I assume you mean by that, ‘fake a belief in God’. I agree. But that’s not what I meant in affirming that atheism brings you nothing, and Christianity gives you everything. I mean, it’s without a doubt worthwhile to investigate the truth of these claims. In fact, it is the most important truth you could ever doubt. If you decide to be an atheist, you better be damn sure you’re right.
Of course, you cannot change your own belief by sheer will. But you can undertake a course of study and inquiry that will lead you in the right direction. Ask questions. Do research. Try to understand, rather than to just respond for the sake of it. That means refraining from stuff like:
If you don’t understand something, ask. This is a blatant mischaracterization of the arguments presented by those above. The Christians here are arguing at a different level to you, please understand.
You are saying: ‘This is what is good. This is what my definition of good is.’
We are saying: ‘Atheism brings up many questions. How do we know what is really good? Why should ‘good’ exist? Is it just a matter of opinion? How do we even know that hurting people is intrisically bad? Is it just a matter of intuition, or is there something to ground it beyond simply saying, ‘I think x, y, and z are good.’? What happens if I disagree with your opinion of what is good? Is it a majority vote?’
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that wasn’t an attempt at an insult, so OK, I’m asking….
So I ask, why are people bringing this up so much? What point are you trying to make here that has anything to do with the question about the existence of God?
Armitage,
How does your answer (#83, 90)have anyting to do with my question? I asked”
“The “we’ll all be better off for it” (greater good) may be true but why should they care about being better off. That’s just your subjective opinion about the way things should be.”
You said“we probably would have problems with many people who can’t grasp the concept of the greater good.”
You have avoided the central issue that the “greater good” itself is simply your subjective opinion of the way things should be and not a standard you have established needs to be followed. You didn’t really miss that did you?
“What point are you trying to make here that has anything to do with the question about the existence of God?”
That without God to set the moral standard, there aren’t any moral standards. You certainly seem to think there are moral standards (greater good, good for goodness sake). How so?
Armitage,
So I ask, why are people bringing this up so much? What point are you trying to make here that has anything to do with the question about the existence of God?
They are just replying to your points. Look, you started the comments section by derailing the thread with subtle attacks. The video is about the rally you attended but are apparently too embarrassed to defend. So you started talking about other things, such as being good for goodness sake and reasons why you threw in the towel and became a gnu.
Wait, I started talking about being good? How can you make such a claim when it’s so easy to go the top of the page and search for the first occurrence of the word good?
I’m not here to defend atheism. I’m here looking for my answers. Maybe you should reread my comment #24.
As for…
I’ve already stipulated a few times that I see that that is a major concern in a fictional society with no religious belief.
Even when folks here may be slowing convincing me of a point, you still stick to being adversarial.
Fine, whatever…. like any of this matters. Congrats, great testimony of yours. You should bring it up in church Sunday how you were able to drive a heathen away from this site.
Seriously? You were willing to engage us and visa versa on a range of topics. We asked some very basic questions about your worldview and you answered with “good for goodness sake” and acting for the “greater good”. We then asked you to justify your belief that people should act that way for that reason you accuse us of beng adversarial? That’s hardly true or fair.
Just to pop in a little point, I’ve heard it a few times from other people lately;
@MikeGene (#100)
If God is omniscient, surely he fully knows what is is like to be one of us, whether he was incarnated or not?
Bar misunderstanding, to me, this strikes off what you give as the primary selling point of resonance found uniquely in Christianity.
@Alex,
How about interpreting Mike’s statement slightly differently:
…and He does this in His grace, because He knows us well enough to know that this demonstration is to our benefit.
Good point, Doug.
Also, Biblical “knowing” is not merely about intellectual apprehension, but experiential intimacy.
Even God’s omniscience does not give Him that kind of experience.
Besides which, Mike Gene gave one result of the Incarnation (thus, God knows …) which comes nowhere near exhausting the purposes and results of the Incarnation, which is central and unique to Christianity.
Hebrews 4:
Armitage,
With all due respect and I mean that quite sincerely, you stated:
“I’ve already stipulated a few times that I see that that is a major concern in a fictional society with no religious belief.”
This isn’t a problem for a “fictional society with no religious belief”. It’s a problem for anyone and everyone with with no religious belief. It’s a problem for you. You’re obviously good person who believes in doing and being good. However, your own beliefs give you no basis for for either being “good for goodness sake” or for the “greater good”. We are honestly concerned for you.
@Alex
There is more to the Incarnation than just God taking on human form and coming to earth for a visit.
He took on a human life so that by His death and resurrection, Jesus could give us eternal life. The Incarnation gives the Cross its perfect, spotless substitutionary sacrifice and power to redeem a fallen world and the Resurrection its triumph over sin and death. It represents what is going to become a new mode of existence for a redeemed humanity – a perfect and seamless symbiosis between the spiritual and the physical.
A few references for your consideration:
Galations 3:23-4:7
John 3:16-21
1 John 4:10-19
Romans 5:1-21
The entire book of Hebrews 🙂
You might also want to check out
http://discoveryseries.org/discovery-series/who-is-this-man-who-says-hes-god/
http://discoveryseries.org/discovery-series/browse/all/term/christ/page/1/posts_per_page/10/show_title/false/
– this is a link to an entire series about Jesus Christ.
and
http://bible.org/topics/388/Incarnation
Finally, C. S. Lewis, in Miracles/The Grand Miracle discusses the significance and necessity of the Incarnation most eloquently. You would do well to read that with fresh eyes, and then go back and read what the NT says as well as the other references I mentioned.
Thanks very much for your thoughts and links everyone, I’ll journey through them!
And I do recognise there’s plenty more to the Incarnation than just the matter of God experiencing being human, I was just questioning that particular point. 🙂
I was just wondering if anyone on this forum could answer a question I have since we are talking about “good” so much. Before Judaism and Christianity were introduced to much of the world, do you think in those early societies there was a concept of good and bad? right and wrong? were there good people back then or were they all living as animals?
And do animals themselves understand the concept of good and bad? right and wrong? and if so, where does their understanding of this concept come from? Whats its grounding?
@Noah,
Long before Judaism (and hence Christianity), there was at very least a religious approach to human life.
We have much other evidence for the claim that good and evil were very early concepts.
We have no idea whether animals grasp moral concepts, so it is difficult to speculate about its grounding.
I have no doubt there was a religious approach to life, but would that necessarily dictate that there was a God inspired, God grounded morality?
In areas of the world that worshiped natural things like rocks, volcanoes or whatnot, do you think these people understood good vs bad? Right vs wrong? If so, where did they get their concept of this? Why would they behave good while the revelation of Judaism was hidden from large parts of the world for a long time.
As for animals I am not sure either. But do you think they know right from wrong? or good and bad? For example, why would a dog try to rescue a human or console the human while dying? Why would one animal treat a different species of animal as their own? Or why does a dog seem to know its doing something wrong around the house?
@Noah,
Not clear (of course) if early religious sensibilities were God-grounded. But it is interesting (at least) that many of those who assumed against the “God hypothesis” were quite surprised at the profound religiosity of Gobekli Tepe.
However, it may be possible to infer (at least some aspects of) early religion on the basis of existing primitive religion (this is a great book, for example)
Noah,
Christian doctrine holds that there is a moral dimension to the created order. So when people talk of right and wrong, good and bad they are talking about a real objective aspect of reality not good and bad relative to their subjective preferences, goals or desires. If value and purpose are inherent within the created order it is possible for humans to be aware of that and the bible teaches that all people have knowledge of good and bad although we can be mistaken about what is good and bad or deliberately act in ways that are bad. So the answer to your question is that people with no knowledge of God’s special revelation of himself can still in some measure know what is good and act on what is good.
@Noah
Melissa is referring to Romans 1:18-3:1, just so you will know where to look
Alex,
If God is omniscient, surely he fully knows what is is like to be one of us, whether he was incarnated or not?
I don’t share your sense of certainty on this. The only thing I am sure of is that our human brains are vastly limited, so I am very skeptical of the brain’s ability to accurately grasp what is entailed by something like omniscience. For example, perhaps what you are floating is akin to arguing that an omniscient being would know how to make a married bachelor.
I suppose it is possible that an omniscient being would know what it is like to be one of us, but recall the issue was whether all those religions are indistinguishable from each other. With Christian faith, God’s subjective knowledge of pain, abandonment, suffering, etc. is not just a possibility that depends on how our brains process the slippery concept of omnipotence. It just happens to be one of the core aspects of the Gospel. With Islam, are there scriptures which likewise assure us of this?
SteveK:
I wonder just what the appeal is for on you on fighting this point. The objection raised against naturalistic morality was the oft used (and I’m paraphrasing), “On naturalism blind, natural forces would have to be the source of morality” argument (and I hesitate to call it that – its more like a canard). My response neither invalidates theism, theist morality, or even comes close to validating naturalistic morality if that’s what your afraid of. It just rebuts this particular canard, and only suggest that all morality must either exist for amoral reasons, or no reasons at all.
And merely uttering the words “But morality is necessary on theism”, or “Morality grounds morality” doesnt automatically count as having succesfully “explained why this is not the case”.
Things can either exist on account of some reason, or no reason at all. Even if you say some X has a reason Y for its existence, and Y is in some way “self-contained” – then we still need to ask what the reason is for Y’s existence. And then does Y also have a self-contained reason?
This is all just a round about way to talk about the euthyphro dilemma – which ultimately shows that any morality which proports to ground itself on some first principle or fundamental source is as it is for amoral reasons, or no reasons at all.
As I already said, not interested in that particular conversation right now, and you can read another recent epic length thread where the morality conversation happened in full blast.
G. Rodrigues,
Yea, no worries, that really wasn’t very clear the way I broke up the quotes. Sorry for the confusion.
Maitzen was actually expounding upon Thomas Nagel’s 1971 paper, The Absurd (http://www.pitt.edu/~kis23/ABSURD.pdf). That’s the “original source” if you don’t find Maitzen compelling.
However, your objection misses what he’s arguing. He’s basically saying that no matter what you posit as the ultimate purpose or meaning, it never becomes incoherent to ask “Well, what is the meaning of THAT?”
And that question is all that stands between some previously asserted objective ultimate purpose getting knocked down a peg to non-ultimate status. In other words, the phrase “the ultimate purpose, as an objective matter of fact” is incoherent. And neither theism or naturalism can account for logically incoherent things. And theists are therefore mistaken, if they believe theism can give one ultimate purpose.
d,
I guess then it’s just as well that G. Rodrigues was not writing in support of “the ultimate purpose”. You would be more creditable if you demonstrated that you read what is written. If you’re not sure what I’m referring to go back and read the first sentence of his that you quoted.
Noah,
There is no way to definitively ascertain whether animal morality exists, but, my own opinion on animal morality is this: Many animals may exhibit what appears to be a moral comprehension of certain acts. Certainly, some animals seem to behave altruistically, and others, like the example of the dog you have given, know when they are doing wrong.
However, if altruistic behaviours are beneficial to the functioning of a species, there’s no reason to believe that they are any more exceptional than any other beneficial behaviour. In addition, many animals are indeed capable of reading body language and tone of voice, and understand that certain actions, more than others, will lead to hostility. This is only a couple of steps above Pavlov’s dog’s salivation at the ringing of the bell. Many of the behaviours you describe strongly resemble human moral sense, but that is all it is, a resemblance.
The key here is that I find it hard to believe that animals have a sense of moral culpability, an intrinsic longing for justice, an unprompted awareness of the significance of certain acts. But I take all this from human exceptionalism, of course, grounded in Christian thought. Without that basis, you are truly free to think what you wish.
Melissa,
It just doesnt matter one single bit to the point that I was reiterating, and to the point of Maitzen’s passage.
For any X proposed as the ultimate purpose or meaning, X can be made non-ultimate.
Whether the Beatific Vision was incorrectly labelled as an ultimate purpose is besides the point, as its simply a hypothetical example.
@d (#123):
Could you explain what you mean by this? You have repeated this canard (heh) numberless times, imagining you are making some deep point, but all I can read is either a meaningless or a vacuous statement. Since the failing may well be entirely mine, thus my question.
Yes, you can also ask for a reason. The answer is in short: necessary being, a being whose reason or raison d’etre lies in itself, e.g. God as pure act, or that in which essence and existence are one and the same thing. This is where the buck stops. Asking of God why He exists is tantamount to asking why subsistent existence itself exists.
First, what is actually discussed in the dialogue Euthyphro is not whether God or the gods are good, but how best to define piety. Second, to repeat my request above, you are being less than clear. What are you trying to say here and what is the relevance of this?
#124, #127:
Funny you charging me with missing the point. Read back again what I wrote. But even your response makes no sense. The fact that we can coherently ask of a given purpose X if it is the ultimate purpose does nothing to alter the ultimate status of said purpose. To change the question a little, yes you can keep asking, “is God the ultimate ground of all being” the answer being a resounding yes, no matter how many times you ask the question. Or a Saint in heaven experiencing the Beatific Vision and pausing for a moment to question himself “is this all?” (leaving aside the incoherence of the scenario) does not change one whit the *objective* fact that the Beatific Vision is the highest good. To say as you say in #127
is to commit the typical nominalist fallacy. It presupposes that given some ultimate purpose X, that is ultimate as a matter of *objective* fact, it can be made non-ultimate by an act of the will. Now, d, that which is is, and is not changed into non being by the mere fact of imagining or asserting so. In AT metaphysics, purposes or meanings are not constructs or projections of the mind into reality, but objective features of reality.
note: and I recall that I never argued in terms of ultimate purposes. On the other hand *you* have, so ironically you are torpedoing your *own* moral theory — because when before we contended that there were no shared ultimate purposes, with “shared” being the matter of contention, now by your own admission, there are not even “ultimate” purposes.
I made it! 😀
Thanks, Peter! I caught that a little while ago and didn’t update the info here. You did a great thing when you did this.
Thanks Tom, you’re welcome! I got the invite citation wrong first time (said it was Silverman) but I’ve managed to get rid of that and correct it to citing the NPA. Anything I can do to help out and vent my own frustrations at the hypocritical things done in the name of “reason”!
asdf
Thanks for the response. The morality of animals is an interesting topic for me. Anyway, I bring up this point to just make a suggestion on morality without God. As you said, “Many animals may exhibit what appears to be a moral comprehension of certain acts. Certainly, some animals seem to behave altruistically, and others, like the example of the dog you have given, know when they are doing wrong.”
I dont think its far fetched that if animals with a much lower cognitive ability than our own can have some measure of altruism, compassion and a basic understanding of good vs bad, then I don’t think its far fetched that we, as humans, could come to understand these things in a much greater context especially given the thousands of years of socialization, spoken language, etc…
Now did writers/followers of the God of Abraham contribute to our moral development? Of course. However, I believe secularism equally has influenced our values and morals as a people, especially in a much more globalized world. I have spent a good number of years living outside of the west where the concept of Christianity really had very little to do with development of such a society. So living there how is it such a place can be equally if not more moral than in western “christian” places? How did their morality develop to a greater standard without the knowledge and influence of the bible?
Hmmm, you’ve misunderstood me. I was explicitly saying that although animals appear to be acting on good and bad, that they probably lack the proper knowledge and self-awareness to do so.
Also, how can you judge another country’s morality to be of a greater standard? Do you mean it more closely resembles your own standard? Your own objection is a little incoherent.
Perhaps I did misunderstand what you were staying about the animals. I am of the belief that they have some crude sense of right/wrong, rules and hierarchy. I think that animals can exhibit even the slightest of form of morality without knowledge of a God, how much more could we as creatures with a higher functioning brain, language, culture, customs and socialization. I
As far as another country goes, I dont know if I really could say one has a greater morality than the western standard but what I am getting at is the development and continuation of morality in non christian influenced nations. How is it that it is said that without God morality really can’t exist and that people without God have no reason not to be raping, murdering or doing whatever. When I think about this and look at christian influenced nations and non christian influenced nations I see at least the same standard of morality, if not greater, than what I find in christian influenced nations. How could this be if God is the centre of all things moral? How is that nations comprised mostly of atheists have similar standards of morality than those whose nations at one time were extremely christian?
I am one to think that the human condition would be practically in the same place as it is now without religion to be used a moral compass. I think that overtime we would have arrived at the exact same place we find ourselves in today. This is why I bring up the dogs, perhaps ancient man behaved similar to the dogs.. and then overtime through various process of socialization we find ourselves in the moral state we are today.